DETAILED ACTION
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
In claim 1, the Examiner interprets the vitrifiable materials as the material worked upon by the apparatus.
In claim 1, lines 12-13, Applicant recites “at least one outlet means located downstream of the fining tank for a melted glass to flow to a working zone”. The Examiner has interpreted “for a melted glass to flow to a working zone” as intended use of the at least one outlet means in the apparatus claim. Accordingly, it is interpreted a working zone is not required in the apparatus claim.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following claim limitations use the word “means”: electrical heating means, combustion heating means, at least one first inlet means, at least one outlet means, at one second inlet means, and at least one third inlet means.
In the specification, electrical heating means ([0019]- electrodes), combustion heating means ([0019]-burners), inlet means ([0052]-top batch charger), and outlet means ([0070]-[0071]-neck/throat).
Claim Objections
Claim 18 objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error in claim 18. In claim 18, the Examiner notes the amendment reads “the third crown [[Cliii]]”, in line 2 of claim 18, but Cliii was previously mapped to “the third melting crown [[Cliii]]” in line 3 of claim 17. Appropriate correction is required. For Examination purposes Claim 18, the Examiner interprets “the third crown” should be “the third melting crown”.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error in claim 21. Claim 21 references claim 17, the Examiner interprets “ Wlii” should be “Wliii”, since claim 17 references Wliii. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-16 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 15-16 share dependency with claim 9, and claim 9 claims at least one second inlet means located at the second melting tank, but in claims 15-16 the location of the at least one second inlet means is tied to the at least one first melting tank, and it is unclear how the second melting tank is related to the at least one first melting tank. Accordingly, the claim lacks clarity. For Examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the locations reference the second melting tank.
Claims 23-24 share dependency with claim 17, and claim 17 claims at least one third inlet means located at the third melting tank, but in claims 23-24 the location of the at least one third inlet means is tied to the at least one first melting tank, and it is unclear how the third melting tank is related to the at least one first melting tank. Accordingly, the claim lacks clarity. For Examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the locations in reference the third melting tank.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of copending Application No. 18/869,338 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 9 of the provisional application claims specifically in claim 1 the following:
a melting tank (corresponding to at least one first melting tank); crowns C1 and C2 (corresponding to a first melting crown) and equipped with electrical heating mean;
a fining tank covered by a crown C4 (corresponding to a fining crown) and equipped with combustion means;
a neck (corresponding to at least one first neck) covered by a crown C3 (corresponding to a first crown) and separating the melting tank (i.e. at least first melting tank) and the fining tank;
at least one inlet means located at the melting tank (i.e. at least one first melting tank), for charging the melting tank with vitrifiable materials to be heated; and
at least one outlet means located downstream of the fining tank for melted glass to flow to working zone. Claim 11/9/1 claims the furnace is defined by the following 0.1 * WF <= WN <=0.6 W*WF, where WF corresponds to W2 and WN corresponds to W3i. Accordingly, Claim 11/9/1 claims the same equation 0.1*W2<=W3i<=0.6*W2. Additionally, Claim 9/1 claims WM >= 1.4*WN, where WM corresponds to Wli and WN corresponds to W3i. Accordingly, claim 11 provides for the same equation Wli>=1.4*W3i.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cozac et al. (US 5,078,777 – hereinafter Cozac).
Regarding claim 1, Cozac (Figs. 1-6, Col. 10, line 51 to Col. 11, line 25) discloses at least one first melting tank (“tank 2”) covered by a first melting crown (“superstructure 16”). Cozac (Figs. 1-6 and Col. 13) discloses the melting compartment 1 of tank 2 including a plurality of electrodes and (Col. 4, lines 12-13) the furnace may be heated electrically using electrodes immersed in the melt. The plurality of electrodes correspond to electrical heating means. Cozac (Figs. 1-6 and Col. 10, line 51 to Col. 11, line 33) discloses a fining tank (“refining tank 3”) covered by a fining crown (“superstructure 17”) and discloses burners 19, 20, and 21 in the refining compartment in the fining tank. Cozac (Col. 16, lines 18-19) further discloses fuel fed to the burners.
Cozac fails to explicitly state the burners are a combustion heating means. However, since Cozac discloses fuel is fed to the burners, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the burners provide for a combustion heating means, as claimed. Cozac (Figs. 1-6 and Col. 10, line 51 to Col. 11, line 33) discloses at least one first neck (“throat 5”) and the at least one first neck separating the at least one first melting tank and the fining. Cozac (Fig. 6) illustrates the throat is covered. Accordingly, Cozac provides for the at least one neck (i.e. throat) covered by a first crown.
Cozac (Fig. 2 and Col. 7, lines 49-55) illustrates an opening in tank 2 and discloses the tank and supersturcture equipped for receiving and melting raw batch material. Accordingly, based on these disclosures, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, there is at least one first inlet means, such as an opening, located at the at least one first melting tank for charging (i.e. receiving) with raw batch materials (corresponding to vitrifiable materials) to be heated.
Cozac (Figs. 1 and 5 and Col. 10, lines 51 to 67) discloses the refining tank is provided with a neck 10 giving communication with a conditioning tank 11. The neck 10 provides for at least one outlet means located downstream of the fining tank for a melted glass to flow to a conditioning tank (corresponding to a working zone) or to a glass shaping apparatus (corresponding to a working zone).
Cozac (Col. 13) discloses the width of the at least one first melting tank (Wli) is 4.0 m, the width of the fining tank (W2) is 4.0 m, and the width of the neck (i.e. throat) (W3i) as 0.7 m. With these dimensions, Cozac provides for the furnace with dimensions within Applicant’s claimed range as claimed in the equations in lines 15 and 16. For example, in line 15, 0.1*W2 (4.0m) <= W3i (0.7 m) <= 0.6*W2 (4.0m) (calculated as 0.4 m <= 0.7 m <= 2.4 m) and in line 16 Wli (4.0 m) >= 1.4 W3i (0.7 m) (calculated as (4.0 m >= 0.98 m).
Regarding claim 3, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Cozac illustrates the neck (i.e. throat) is covered, which provides for a first crown and Cozac (Figs. 1-6) discloses a fining crown (“superstructure 17”). Cozac (Figs. 1-6) further illustrates the first crown covering the throat and a roof of neck 10 has a height which is lower than a height of the fining crown. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the first crown has a height which is lower than a height of the fining crown.
Regarding claim 4, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Cozac discloses a first crown covering the neck and a first melting crown (“superstructure 16”). Cozac (Figs. 1-6) further illustrates the first crown covering the throat and a roof of neck 10 has a height which is lower than a height of the first melting crown. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the first crown covering the neck has a height which is lower than a height of the first melting crown, as claimed in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Cozac (Col. 13) discloses the width of the at least one first melting tank (Wli) is 4.0 m, the width of the fining tank (W2) is 4.0 m, and the width of the neck (i.e. throat) (W3i) as 0.7 m. With these dimensions, Cozac provides for the furnace with dimensions within Applicant’s claimed range as claimed in claim 5 ((4.0 m) Wli >= 1.5 * W3i (0.7 m) calculated as 4.0 m >= 1.05 m).
Regarding claim 6, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Cozac teaches width of the neck (i.e. throat) W3i as 0.7 m. Cozac (Figures and Col. 13) further discloses an alternative tank width, such as 3.6 m and an alternative neck width, such as of 1.2 m. Cozac discloses neck 10 between refining tank 3 and conditioning tank 11. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Cozac, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, alternative neck widths, such as such as width of 1.2 m, between two tanks. With this alternative neck width, this provides for the conditions claimed in claim 6, 0.2*4.0 m <= 1.2 m <= 0.6*4.0 m (calculated as 0.8 m <= 1.2 m <= 2.4 m), as claimed.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cozac et al. (US 5,078,777 – hereinafter Cozac) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 6,253,578 – hereinafter Kobayashi) and Reynolds et al. (WO2020/229559A1 – hereinafter Reynolds).
Regarding claim 2, Cozac fails to disclose the first melting crown covering the at least one first melting tank, where the height of the first melting crown is lower than a height of the fining crown. However, Kobayashi (Col. 4, lines 26-34 and Fig. 1) teaches a glass melting furnace and teaches a higher crown height due to an increase in burner height so as to prevent an increase in the crown temperature, and teaches a higher crown height increases the furnace wall surface area and results in larger heat losses, thus a lower crown height may be preferred from the standpoint of optimizing furnace energy efficiency. Additionally, Reynolds (Fig. 1, abstract, pg. 11, line 1) discloses a furnace comprising a fining zone (last combustion zone) having a height H, and a melting zone having a height h, and teaches the height h in the melting section as lower than a height in the fining section. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Kobayashi and Reynolds, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the crown height affects the furnace energy efficiency of the furnace, and therefore, it is a recognized result effective variable and it would be obvious to optimize the crown height, and it would be obvious to try a first melting crown in a melting section as having a height which is lower than a height of the fining crown covering the fining section during optimization.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cozac et al. (US 5,078,777 – hereinafter Cozac) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of FR-2787784-A1 (hereinafter FR’784).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Cozac (Fig. 2 and Col. 7, lines 49-55) illustrates an opening in tank 2 and discloses the tank and supersturcture equipped for receiving and melting raw batch material. Accordingly, based on these disclosures, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, there is at least one first inlet means, such as an opening, located at the at least one first melting tank for charging (i.e. receiving) with raw batch materials (corresponding to vitrifiable materials) to be heated.
Cozac fails to disclose the at least one first inlet means located upstream of the at least one first melting tank, as claimed in one embodiment of claim 7 and claimed in claim 8. However, FR’784 (Fig. 1 and [0006]) discloses a glass melting tank 5, and (Figs. 6-8 and [0006]) discloses examples of the introduction of vitrifiable material through an opening in the wall of the furnace. FR’784 (Fig. 8 and [0006]) the use of a throat technique at the opening that includes an upstream enclosure to supply the furnace with vitrifiable material (i.e. glass composition). Both Cozac and FR’784 disclose an opening in the wall of the furnace that provides for at least one first inlet located at the at least one first melting tank. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by FR’784, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the apparatus of Cozac could be modified to include the use of a throat at the melting tank that includes an upstream enclosure to supply the furnace with vitrifiable material, since it is a known prior art technique to introduce vitrifiable material into a melting tank with a throat technique combined with an upstream enclosure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and therefore, allowability is unable to be determined.
Claims 18 and 21 is/are objected to for typographical errors.
Claims 9-14 and 17-22 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of Cozac in view of Johnson fails to disclose or fairly suggest the width of the fining tank in combination with at least one first melting tank, a first neck, a second melting tank, a second neck, and a width of the second neck, as claimed in the inequality that defines the furnace in line 11 of claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-1623. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: EST 6:00am-3:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LISA L HERRING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741